Decentralization: For Humanity’s Sake

The Roman historian Titus Livius once called Rome â€œthe greatest nation in the world.â€ He wrote those words in a time of moral and political decline, and Livy was hoping by outlining the greatness of the once proud republic, the Roman people would arrest the decline and embrace the principles that had made Rome great. Livy argued that without understanding their history, the Roman people would neither be able to â€œendure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.â€

But Livy failed to recognize the catastrophic effect empire and expansion had on the Roman spirit. By expanding north and attempting to assimilate the Germanic peoples and the Celts into Roman culture, Rome sealed its own demise. The Germans and Celts never fully embraced Rome, and those who did retained some element of their own political and cultural identity. Romans were outnumbered by Germanic peoples in their own army, and the disintegration of the Empire seemed inevitable as the fringes of the Empire came under constant assault from groups unwilling to assimilate. There was never a Roman â€œnationâ€ outside of Rome. The men, money, and material needed to build and then hold the Empire were wasted, while the vices and decadence of the ruling class in Rome wrecked the republic. The human cost of the Roman Empire was incalculable.

On a human scale, decentralization made more sense for those under the yoke of Roman domination. Constant wars against foreign peoples, heavy taxes, and alien government was for many an unfair trade for Roman laws, â€œstability, and â€œprotection.â€ Certainly, many people in Europe prospered under Roman control and the â€œPax Romana,â€ but the internal tensions and cultural sacrifices were too large of a burden for the Empire to contain. It was only a matter of time before people realized that they were better off under local control.

Studying the rise and decline of empires has long been instructive for Americans, and for decades, historians, philosophers, economists, diplomats, statesmen, and others have warned against the American Empire. Yet, rarely did those who railed against expansion focus on the human cost of the empire and the political and social marginalization that naturally follows an impersonal government. Like Rome, a demographic map from the 2000 United States Census (see below) emphasizes that an American â€œnationâ€ does not exist, and it is only through the power and propaganda of the â€œUnited Stateâ€ that decentralization has failed to materialize. Obviously, sections still exist and the human cost of the American empire within the 50 States appears to be significant on several levels.

First, the United States should be at minimum broken into the several cultural sections clearly defined by the map. The Northeast, or Deep North, has a cultural identity vastly different than the South. The West, most importantly the Southwest, has a cultural mix inconsistent with the rest of the United States. Richard Henry Lee, among others, recognized this in 1787 when he wrote in the Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican that, â€œfree elective government cannot be extended over large territories [and] one government and general legislation alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded. The United States contain about a million of square miles, and in half a century will, probably, contain ten millions of people; and from the center to the extremes is about 800 miles.â€ The United States now covers almost 4 million square miles and around three-hundred million people. If Lee was correct in 1787, and he was, then he would surely be correct today. Cultural integrity is better maintained by smaller political entities.

Second, one of the longstanding critiques of large governments is the impersonal and ultimately tyrannical nature of powerful centralized authority. The French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws opined that a large republic was unmanageable unless consolidated in a federal or confederated system. British philosopher David Hume, in Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, argued that decentralization was the only way to ensure the greatest level of liberty. Of course, the founding generation was well aware of the arguments for decentralization set forth by the classical Greeks and those of both Enlightenment philosophers.

Lee, in the same Letters From the Federal Farmer, followed a similar line of thinking we he suggested that the people of the States should have a means of defense against the central government. He said, â€œI believe the position is undeniable, that the federal government will be principally in the hands of the natural aristocracy, and the state governments principally in the hands of the democracy, the representatives in the body of the people. These representatives in Great-Britain hold the purse, and have a negative upon all laws. We must yield to circumstances, and depart something from this plan, and strike out a new medium, so as to give efficacy to the whole system, supply the wants of union, and leave the several states, or the people assembled in the state legislatures, the means of defense.â€ In other words, Lee was arguing for the States to have a limited negative power over the central governmentâ€”a â€œdefenseâ€â€”to protect the cultural, economic, and social interests of their separate communities, an action called nullification or state interposition today. It was the most democratic and humane thing to do.

Third, most opponents of decentralization, secession, or nullification argue that minorities would be unjustly impacted should States begin to reassert their sovereignty through nullification or secession. This is dead wrong. As John C. Calhoun emphasized, nullification was used to protect minority interests from the tyranny of the majority. Secession followed the same pattern. Regardless, American minorities today believe that they have the greatest power in the central government, and that State and local communities, particularly in the South, would infringe on minority rights. But this position belies reality.

Data from two Southern States, Mississippi and Alabama, clearly indicates that black Americans are better represented at the State level than in the central government. There is currently one black member of the United States Senate, an appointee, and blacks only comprise approximately nine percent of the United States House of Representatives. In total, blacks account for around thirteen percent of the American population, so they are vastly underrepresented in Washington D.C. Conversely, blacks hold thirty-one percent of the seats in the lower house of the Mississippi legislature and twenty-three percent of the seats in the upper house.

In Alabama, blacks comprise twenty-three percent of both the lower and upper house. Blacks account for thirty-seven percent of the total population in Mississippi and twenty-six percent of the total population in Alabama, making representation in both States more equitable than in Washington D.C. If counties could have a negative veto over State law, minorities would have an even greater political and social impact in their own community. This would comport to Humeâ€™s ideal republic and to the nature of minority Cantons in the Swiss federation.

As Kirkpatrick Sale recently pointed out, decentralization has once again entered the public discourse. Unfortunately, it is often portrayed as simply reactionary when in fact it is the American tradition. Selling it in an era of economic and social collapse has become easier, but the rhetorical roadblocks of racism and treason still exist. Of course, decentralization still has to be sold, but it can be done by emphasizing that the prospect of more local control offers greater political and economic liberty and stronger protection for cultural, religious, or racial minorities. It is the future of America, the future of a free world, and it will bring humanity back to government.

Shouldn’t we first be concerned about “decentralizing” from UN, NATO, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, WB, IMF, BIS, CFR, TC, WHO, ETC, ETC…it just goes on and on. And I am tired of supporting freedom bombs and democracy bullits. If we held our elected officials responsible for neglecting their jobs and selling us out to “global empire”, I doubt seccession and nullification would be necessary. All we need to do is sever the cord that binds us…FRNs.

amen from here to. Our senators have proven ineffective at earning the genuine love of the people, and we've got to figure out why; its because our media doesn't really focus on anything but the most centralized apexes of powers, to a degree of inhibiting the actions the love of the people require.
This is akin to when the roman empire was collapsing, yet all the focus was on the decadent emperor. Like that our senate is not focused because the media focus we do have is superficial; the media focus seems bent on reenforcing the status quo, rather allowing our senators do what needs to be done.
And part of it may be that the vanity of federal office stemming from the vastness of what an official represents, constitutes a vanity and ego unable to conceive the simple idea state legislatures can tailor health care to their own particular state, much better than one homogenious "solution".

As a teacher of government and constitutional case law I have delved into much of the complexity of our unique system and have emerged with a simple matrix that should guide the thinking of all legislators (especially in a time like ours, as pointed out in this article):
1- Is it authorized by the U.S. Constitution?
2- Is it authorized by the state constitution?
3- Is it something that could be left to what Tocqueville calls "free institutions" (business, family, community, media, schools, churches)?
4- If not, it is a core function of government. The final question is can it possibly be sent down to a lower level of government?

I think this matrix would help us avoid the cumbersome legislation that hurts individuals, families, businesses, etc.

I also think we need to amend the Constitution to balance the powers again. Some amendment that undoes the 17th Amendment, some kind of state supreme court check on the U.S. Supreme Court, a balanced budget amendment, some mechanism for preventing the feds from holding our own tax dollars over our heads unless we agree to their commandeering, etc.

decentralization is long overdue, by a 100 years at least; the principle the federalist argued against was the principal of states, being able to impose a check upon federal machinations. That check was to be through the state legislatures, rather than State Supreme Courts, because the legislatures had more representatives of the the people.
In ancient Rome, before expansion collapsed the Roman Empire from its own weight; the check on the federal senate were the offices of tribunes, judicial branch of the lower classes that could veto legislation; much the way the articles of confederation required 9 of 12 states to ratify federal legislation.
Even more than this; the federal government was designed as a community to keep the states from warring each other as Europe was known for. This need has long since passed.
There may be a need for a common defense treaty, but that is it; our cultural regions are hurt by a federal government not designed to solve problems, merely prevent wars between the states. http://vicfedorov.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/consul…

The only "court" that has greater power than the USSC is any that has seated 12 jurists who are FULLY INFORMED of their powers and duties as they were over 100 years ago. See: http://www.fija.org for further information. We absolutely MUST reclaim our juries and KNOW what and how to to go about it.

I am in favor of a Constitutional amendment separating Commerce (central banking) and State. The three main institutions that can be abused for power are Church, State and Commerce. Our Founding Fathers saw the wisdom in separating Church and State. When combined, abuse is all the easier as the Citizenry gets double teamed. All of the alhabet groups mentioned in the earlier post use Public Private Partnerships (PPP).

Where did the Founding Fathers separate Church and State? They protected the church from the state (First Amendment), but certainly did not found a secular republic (In God We Trust, endowed by our Creator, etc). Indeed, most of them were devout men who sought the Almighty's counsel in every affair, including governance. The so-called "separation of Church and State" was taken from a letter written by Jefferson to a church, not any official law or document. Their main aim was that there be no official state religion (such as the Church of England) and the state not interfere with the free exercise of religion. They certainly didn't mean God should be banished from the public square! If you read their writings, you'll see they believed strongly that the republic they had founded was only suitable "for a moral people" and God should be a central figure advising our affairs.

The evolution and distortion of this idea of the wall of separation is fascinating…and devastating to our cohesion as a republic.

Uh, ever hear of the establishment clause? If that is not separation then what is? The Pledge of Allegiance, the dollar bill, all of them had references to god put in much later in American history. If the whole goal of this country was to prevent one entity from being too powerful, one needs only to look at history to see that the church should not be involved in the affairs of government. How does one justify a certain church advising the affairs of citizens who do not subscribe to the beliefs of said church in a society where all should be equal? You can't, it's simple.

"Decentralization is the only peaceful answer to our current problems. "

The federal government getting involved in commerce/banking, circumvents the natural force of the market and producer correcting themselves.
Now there is a general law that people are not allowed to hurt people; but regulation stemming from that principle need not be federal.
And what has religion ever done to you? The federal government forced you to school each day; Government doesn't facilitate the power over the economy by the people.
I suspect most anti-religious sentiments stem the notion Jesus died for you. But that is not preached in many denominations of christianity; and He was seen on Easter; and if you know what "The Kingdom of God" means, you know we don't have the free will supposed; So if you are against religion, which in my presbytarian mind pits itself against the sin of government and government led society; please be specific in your objections, rather than putting down service and intellect many find critical

Vic,
I haven’t seen any anti-religous sentiment in these comments. Are not we all anti-corruption? Corruption (like a virous)feeds on power. Seperate the powers and the extent of damage from an infection is limited. The Church is not immune.

If any want to know the level of corruption see 'what does it mean .com' web site for a report on intentional foreclosure deals.
Several groups are intending to try a legal, non-shooting, revolutionary take over of America.
I doubt that there is time and just in case there isn't enough time to wait, get ready. Supplies and an out are best, guns, food, and water purification are critical. Outing yourself to a reasonably safe area is on the same level.
The three enemies are: Federal Government with troops, private security armies, and the ultra-rich behind everything.
I suggest that none of these three will let go easily or without a real intense fight. The people, now being the Indians, are the adversary. However, 'it ain't much fun huntin when the rabbit has a gun…and then some!
Church of The Muzzel Flash was put together just for these reasons. Note that there are no answers or solutions to the present problems? You are now the target, and the end justifies the means.
Depleted Uranium has irradiated our troops and all the places we have taken any shots at…the whole place is radioactive! And you think a few blankets full of disease was bad?
The super rich have mostly full control of everything. During a world war, the Joint Chiefs caught up with an oil executive telling him America needed better supply, and demanded it! They were told that fighting a war without fuel would be very difficult…
At any rate, decentralizing is all well and good, BUT, in the time all this takes a lot of people are going to get very hungry, thirsty, and will probably die from exposure…as planned, intentionally, etc.
I've been offering a coalition of several groups, and have yet to hear anything from Tenth Amendment Center…what are you people waiting for exactly?
Do you want to do this or not?
Talk all you want, it is time for some definitive action…send me an e already!

Drake, I think that you are on the wrong page if you think that the 10th amendment center is interested in supporting any group that lists succession as its objective. Our forefathers fought too hard for our freedom, our constitution and our bill of rights to have us thrown into a quagmire as you suggest. The Tenth Amendment Center, at least as I understand it, is devoted to a peaceful and legal process to reclaim our rights as states and citizens of this great country. Yes, a price will have to be paid for this reclamation of our rights, but if it's worth having then it's worth the sacrifices involved.

I am too christian to blame the super rich; but I do know our judges are too easily bribed. They should not have long terms; nor be such a rarfied profession. Many jurists are needed to decide without inhibition.

Great article that points out the obvious. I don't think that the mention of southern States racial makeup does anything to enhance the article except to answer the invalid argument of racism as a reason to avoid succession/nullification.

I see two great analogies to the modern U.S. in this article: A decadent and unresponsive ruling class in D.C. and the attempts to instill, actually force, our type of government in Iraq etc.

For many years I have thought that our overgrown federal government would be most efficient and less cumbersome if the country were regionally confederated and governed. The biggest problem I see with that however is the potential for abuse by a ruling class that would see this as a way to regionally REPRESENT the people in a still federal setting. This would move the people even further from government.

Whether a new department of regional government is created or the current State-centered government stays in place, it is necessary for the people in the States to clarify and state that THEY retain the right to nullify unconstitutional laws and not the SCOTUS. Yes, it may be a slow process to get 2/3 of the States to call for a convention and 3/4 of the States to ratify however, the only other remedy would be succession as none of the States have put any real "teeth" into their nullification acts or they have refused to invoke this power to the immediate benefit of their citizens. I believe a trickle up government, as it was created under the Constitution, is the only kind that will originate with the People and prevent abuses such as those we see today. I can't help but believe that all of the efforts to move the mountain that is D.C. are in vain until the States act. Succession would have to be a last resort.

Drake,
I think it goes all the way back to European soveriegn royalty. As an ultra rich, small class of people, they have been wringing their hands ever since American independence. They promote socialism, communism, marxism because they know that will bring a society down. As free enterprise built this country, they have constantly been subverting it. They have used us to conquer natural resources (including drugs) around the world. The snare they have placed around our collective necks is central banking. Their task is almost complete, but they loathe that we are still armed.

Drake,
I think it goes back to a small class of ultra wealthy (assets not money) that include european sovereign royalty. They have been wringing their hands ever since Americas independence. They promote communism, socialism, maxism, environmentalism because they know it is a way to bring a society down. As free enterprise built this country, they have consistantly subverted it. They use us to conquer the worlds resources. The snare they have placed around our collective necks is central banking. Their task of making us dependant is almost complete, but they loathe that we are still armed.

Bryon, I hope I'm misunderstanding your article. I can't imagine that you are promoting the breakup of the Union into regional countries. If this is the case, why even bother with the 10th Amendment at all? Just promote secession and be done with it. I thought this site was about the 10th Amendment, repeal of the 17th Amendment, and nullification of bad federal law, not the breakup of the Union.

In your article you compare regional (mainly immigrant) ancestry to countries conquered by Rome. I agree that with a country as large and populated as the US, the citizens should not all be governed from Washington, D.C. But break up the Union into regional countries based on ancestry? Crazy talk. Must we re-draw the boundaries of these "regional" countries as the ethnicity of those regions changes? We have successfully avoided the Balkanization of the US for a couple hundred years. Certainly we can hang in there and fix what is broken, without throwing away the Republic.

Just what does the federal government do for you. Wouldn't your state government care more about your state than the federal government? The tenth amendment is a step to state rights, and was intended, I believe to be applied as our country grew bigger; but we neglected it and haven't learned that the rights not given to the federal government by our constitution are reserved for the state or the people (in free assembly)—these reservations are intended to guide us, not the federal government

I think we, the people, are going to have to call for “County Sovereignty”.
As the States have been made “handmaidens of the Feds”, so the State turns around and makes “handmaidens of the Counties”.
Enough, We, the people, live, move and have our beings in the Counties. We elect County Officials to do the “bidding of the LOCAL citizens” It reflects the “LOCAL uniqueness” of the Counties.
I am not advocating violation of State or Federal Constitutions, but States and Feds should not interfer with “FORCED EDICTS” on LOCAL County officials.
In our County here in Tennessee, our County Road Supervisior has been “put on notice” that if he doesn’t change “road signs” by 2015 in accordance with a State edict, his “gas tax collections” will be fined. He runs his “road dept” on those funds and so he is intimidated by this “unreasonable edict” from the State.
Do we, at the County level, have to pass a “County Sovereignty” Resolution to stop this “Crush from the top” and in this case, from the State??????????
NO MORE “Boundary Breaking” LEAVE US ALONE.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson

Terrific essay Prof. McClanahan! And there are cogent ideas as well from Ruth Ann Wilson, James U, and others

As I wrote in the Comments of the Repeal the 17th Amendment article, the AZ state legislature has produced a bill to partially work around the 17th Amendment which would help restore some balance between the powers of the federal government and those of the states. The legislation itself may be viewed here:

In short the AZ legislation would allow the sitting state legislators of a particular political party to select that party’s U.S. Senate candidate for the general election. A statewide popular vote would still be held to decide who will be the senator from among the candidates of all the parties, thus complying with the 17th Amendment. But this would be a step toward greater representation of the state legislatures in the U.S. Senate, a building block toward ultimate repeal of the 17th Am. AND it is something that can be done at the state gov't level – there would be no need to try to convene a constitutional convention, etc.

It is not perfect, as others have pointed out. The language about the state legislature providing "for the nomination of candidates for all elective state, county, and city offices" needs to be adjusted or struck altogether.

We should try our hardest to get something like this implemented in our respective states as soon as possible.

Glad to help Derek! I hope you will keep us posted on the progress of HCR 2046 in Arizona. I am trying to sell it to my state legislators here in Louisiana and hopefully can get something sent in to some newspapers as well.

Better that the people have local control over local challenges. State sovereignty is part of the Founders' plan for restraining the growth of government against individual rights. We need it today to give us time to elect representatives who will be faithful to the freedom philosophy at the federal level.__But, to pretend that States Rights was NOT used to retain slavery and, later, to deny voting rights to minorities in the Southern States is a lie to champion that immorality in American history.__Freedom is good for e v e r y b o d y !!!. So, drop the prejudices and admit the moral failures of the past and move America forward to a condition of individual rights, fully supported by all levels of government, for everyone.__While the Southern States may have had Constitutional entitlements to secede from the Union, they were evil in their defense of slavery. There is no morality in treating persons as property Isn't that what we are fighting against today? The ownership of the citizen and his earnings and his land and the raising of his children by a government that seeks omnipotence? Wrong now

Agree w/ the overall article. However you missed the minority point of view.

You're looking at minority representative #s in 2010, while minorities view it historically; while there are/always have been more minorities in local government, the decisions that helped minorities came out of the federal govt, which set the precedent for local gov't to follow. That is why minorities favor central government. Desegregation of everything, abolishment of the poll tax and literacy tests in voting, right to vote itself, employment discrimination – these came out of amendments and cases, not out of the Southern legislatures.

I think this is the first time Glenn Beck didn't make my ears burn. Reading all these articles on this site, this has been the one question running thru my head. Why do we send Senators and House Reps to D.C.? Can't we just not send anyone from our respective states. I know the Constitution lays out the creation of Congress but can't we just say no thanks. Don't know, it's just something I've been thinking and will have to research more later.